Farenhait 9/11

pp(est)

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Finland/Estonia
Country
llFinland
The Gitmo prisoners are a difficult issue. In principle they should have some sort of prisoner of war status unless they can actually be tried of crimes, but that isn't so simple since how do we determine when the war on terror is over? Most of the guys held in Gitmo will continue activities supporting terrorism if not actually participating in terrorism when returned.

I don't have a good answer to what to do with them. A large part of me cries foul and demands that those who cannot be tried now should be released immediately. The realistic side of me tells that we should wait until both Iraq and Afghanistan are fairly stabilised...

Of course nothing justifies torturing or ill treatment of these prisoners.
 

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
Crash said:
The US has tortured and killed prisoners but at least they didn't cut their heads off. Is that your argument?
Yes, despite your sarcasm, that is exactly my argument. You conveniently forgot to add, that the American military is courts-martialling those responsible for torture & killings of prisoners.
Let me check the Convention and get back to you on that :rolleyes:
You do that. Don't forget to beg permission of KofiAnnan, the French :bandit: & German governments while you're at it. (Note to Kraut: That's my anti-German comment of the month. I'm still behind you in this regards, by approximately a dozen posts.)
The beheadings are not being conducted by a government agency.
So? Your point being? Are you trying to imply that it's morally acceptable to cut off heads, as long you are not a government agent? :nuts:

I'll take being in the custody of the American military any day, warts & all, versus in the hands of terrorists. Apparently you'd prefer the jihadis; how about you go to Iraq and find out for yourself who has the moral advantage. :mad:

I find myself uncharectistically angry :( usually I'm not offended in these forums :cool: by what I am considering to be an attack, probably NOT intentional, regards the character of the American military. And yes, I do think that they are the good guys. 'Nuff said by me.
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Richa333 said:
Yes, despite your sarcasm, that is exactly my argument. You conveniently forgot to add, that the American military is courts-martialling those responsible for torture & killings of prisoners.You do that. Don't forget to beg permission of KofiAnnan, the French :bandit: & German governments while you're at it. (Note to Kraut: That's my anti-German comment of the month. I'm still behind you in this regards, by approximately a dozen posts.)So? Your point being? Are you trying to imply that it's morally acceptable to cut off heads, as long you are not a government agent? :nuts:

I'll take being in the custody of the American military any day, warts & all, versus in the hands of terrorists. Apparently you'd prefer the jihadis; how about you go to Iraq and find out for yourself who has the moral advantage. :mad:

I find myself uncharectistically angry :( usually I'm not offended in these forums :cool: by what I am considering to be an attack, probably NOT intentional, regards the character of the American military. And yes, I do think that they are the good guys. 'Nuff said by me.
It isn't a question of who is "better". The point is that both sides are guilty of killing captives in their care. Just this week, charges were filed against 7 Navy SEALS for killing prisoners in their care in Iraq. And as far as court-martialing the guilty parties, all I've seen is the lowest ranking members of the military being punished. Not the CIA operatives that "suggested" it might be a good idea to "soften up the prisoners for interrogation". Not the commanding officer and officers on duty of the prison where this all took place. Not the Secretary of Defense who authorized these controversial "interrogation" techniques. Not the Attorney General who went through all that trouble to define what constitutes "torture" so we could get away with it legally. And certainly not the President who not only knew about these shennanigans, but at least tacitly approving them by not intervening to put an end to them.

It's disgraceful that the only people suffering are the privates and sargeants at the bottom.

- Rick
 

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
purdyrc said:
It isn't a question of who is "better". The point is that both sides are guilty of killing captives in their care. Just this week, charges were filed against 7 Navy SEALS for killing prisoners in their care in Iraq. And as far as court-martialing the guilty parties, all I've seen is the lowest ranking members of the military being punished.
We've posted elsewhere on this forum that officers are now being charged in courts-martial.
Not the CIA operatives that "suggested" it might be a good idea to "soften up the prisoners for interrogation". Not the commanding officer and officers on duty of the prison where this all took place.
Also as stated elsewhere in these forums, the courts-martials are following a classic criminal prosecutor's progression: start low to see who turns, then work up the chain of command.
Not the Secretary of Defense who authorized these controversial "interrogation" techniques. Not the Attorney General who went through all that trouble to define what constitutes "torture" so we could get away with it legally. And certainly not the President who not only knew about these shennanigans, but at least tacitly approving them by not intervening to put an end to them.
Well, if that's what you think, go ahead & promote that & get others to vote with you. I disagree with your view so it's no surprise I'll be voting differently. And if you're really enraged, why not write to your Congressman demanding hearings & impeachments?
It's disgraceful that the only people suffering are the privates and sargeants at the bottom.- Rick
What's disgraceful is that you don't see the moral difference between the American military -- which IS addressing its bad apples -- and the terrorists -- who glorify their bad apples.
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Richa333 said:
We've posted elsewhere on this forum that officers are now being charged in courts-martial. Also as stated elsewhere in these forums, the courts-martials are following a classic criminal prosecutor's progression: start low to see who turns, then work up the chain of command.
I've not seen any reports of any officers being court martialed. As far as working their way up the chain, I think it is more than likely going to stop right at the level of sergeant. I'm sorry I don't share your optimism in this case.

Richa333 said:
Well, if that's what you think, go ahead & promote that & get others to vote with you. I disagree with your view so it's no surprise I'll be voting differently. And if you're really enraged, why not write to your Congressman demanding hearings & impeachments?
At last check, about 50% of the country thinks this way. Even more of them are now disagreeing with the war in Iraq.

And I have written my Congressmen. I'm one of those letter-writing whack-jobs people keep talking about.
Richa333 said:
What's disgraceful is that you don't see the moral difference between the American military -- which IS addressing its bad apples -- and the terrorists -- who glorify their bad apples.
These are your words. They are certainly NOT what I said. My question to you and to this forum is how do we claim the moral high ground when our hands are bloody too? Because we make a big show about prosecuting some marginally literate private with a head the size of a large grapefruit (seriously, Lynndie England's head is tiny, man)? We gain the moral high ground by denouncing terror and torture in clear, unequivicol terms. Not by legally defining our way around it or by shipping people off to third party countries where the ideas of liberty and fair trials are laughed at. Just because the terrorists think that killing captives is a good idea, it doesn't mean the majority of people think so.

Again, the contest shouldn't be who is better. There should be no contest. I shouldn't be able to pull examples of torture and illegal imprisonment out of our countries history. I should have to search the histories of other countries and then hold them up as examples of what NOT to do.

That's my moral outrage!

- Rick
 

Crash

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Richa333 said:
I find myself uncharectistically angry :( usually I'm not offended in these forums :cool: by what I am considering to be an attack, probably NOT intentional, regards the character of the American military.
It's an attack all right but not one on the American Military. It's an attack on those who commit war crimes and those that attempt to minimize those actions. One doesn't win awards because their war crimes are 'less' then the next guys!

The point is that the moral war is measured on what they think and not on what we think. Thinking one is better then others, while being very patriotic, has done squat in Iraq in other places.

OBL goal is to create one superpower Islamic state. The quicker OBL can show Muslims that they need to band together to take on 'colonization' and that we hate so much that we will rape, torture, and kill them the faster this is going to happen. So what happens is the US goes against the United Nations, because it can, and attacks a small sovereign nation and kills and tortures. It goes against the geneva conventions in an attempt to circumvent the very rights claimed to be upheld. We get bogged down militarily and economically in a red herring. OBL couldn't have written a better script. Now today we see in moderate states that OBL is more popular then Bush...a huge post 9/11 swing. We are losing the war on terror big time.
 
Last edited:

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
purdyrc said:
The article only mentioned two warrants and two sergeants. Still no officers.

- Rick
A warrant is an officer. There's two general kinds of officers: one is commissioned, the other is warrant (sometimes called limited duty). A warrant is still an officer.

Again, my posts hold: the courts-martials are progressing up the chain of command, which is a standard criminal prosecutor's gambit (see if the lower levels turn on the higher).
 

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
Crash said:
We are losing the war on terror big time.
Only if you think that the civilians of the Middle East specifically, or Islam in general, actually have a say in their governments' foreign policy.

They don't.

What controls the funding of terrorists, and whether those terrorists have safe harbors, are the governments.

And, it doesn't matter how many millions of terrorists grab a gun, shoot some bullets and hate Americans.

What matters is: how many talented top executives and mid-manager terrorists -- a commodity much rarer in the Middle East than in America -- are going to be able & willing to attack America on American soil.

In that sense, America & allies are winning brilliantly and the terrorists are getting their a$$es beat to crap.

Questions?
 

nreese21

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
129
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois, USA
Country
llNorway
Richa333 said:
Only if you think that the civilians of the Middle East specifically, or Islam in general, actually have a say in their governments' foreign policy.

They don't.

What controls the funding of terrorists, and whether those terrorists have safe harbors, are the governments.

And, it doesn't matter how many millions of terrorists grab a gun, shoot some bullets and hate Americans.

What matters is: how many talented top executives and mid-manager terrorists -- a commodity much rarer in the Middle East than in America -- are going to be able & willing to attack America on American soil.

In that sense, America & allies are winning brilliantly and the terrorists are getting their a$$es beat to crap.

Questions?
brilliantly said Richa!
 

dannybou

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Well now you guys have me curious about Moore's documentary and I'll have to rent it and see it.
 

Crash

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Richa333 said:
What controls the funding of terrorists, and whether those terrorists have safe harbors, are the governments.
Policies are creating a new generation of pissed off Muslims. I'm afraid that soon, if not already, the governments will be the moderates.

Richa333 said:
What matters is: how many talented top executives and mid-manager terrorists -- a commodity much rarer in the Middle East than in America -- are going to be able & willing to attack America on American soil.
We supposedly have reduced the AQ leadership by 75% yet terror is on the rise and has spread. Israel has been using that tactic and has been reduced to a police state.

Sure we need to continue to hunt and kill terrorists but I think in order to make a real impact we need to resolve the Palestinian crisis.
 

nreese21

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
129
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois, USA
Country
llNorway
dannybou said:
Well now you guys have me curious about Moore's documentary and I'll have to rent it and see it.
make sure after you see it you also rent "FarenHYPE 9/11" as well. It shows where Michael Moore was lying and telling these half truths.

To be honest with you, I am curious to see what this little [insert inappropriate word here] has to say, but I don't want to contribute any money to this [insert many inappropriate words here].
 

Crash

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
nreese21 said:
make sure after you see it you also rent "FarenHYPE 9/11" as well. It shows where Michael Moore was lying and telling these half truths.

To be honest with you, I am curious to see what this little [insert inappropriate word here] has to say, but I don't want to contribute any money to this [insert many inappropriate words here].
You actually learn very little new if you've been paying attention over the past 4 years. Moore's sources are mostly major news outlets.

At any rate, they say the sign of intelligence is to be able to hold two opposing points of view without meltdown :D
 

dannybou

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Will have to make sure my wife is not around when I do rent it or it'll just put her to sleep....... hummmmm there's a plan!!
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
Richa333 said:
A warrant is an officer. There's two general kinds of officers: one is commissioned, the other is warrant (sometimes called limited duty). A warrant is still an officer.

Again, my posts hold: the courts-martials are progressing up the chain of command, which is a standard criminal prosecutor's gambit (see if the lower levels turn on the higher).
Also, Sergeants are NON-COMMISSIONED Officers, and are also held to a higher standard,...often even higher than the Officers above them, unfortunately.
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Richa333 said:
A warrant is an officer. There's two general kinds of officers: one is commissioned, the other is warrant (sometimes called limited duty). A warrant is still an officer.

Again, my posts hold: the courts-martials are progressing up the chain of command, which is a standard criminal prosecutor's gambit (see if the lower levels turn on the higher).
A warrant isn't really an officer. The ranks exist as a bridge between the enlisted and the commissioned officers. They usually hold technical or specialist positions in the military (like helicopter pilots) and don't usually command or even supervise groups of enlisted. Generally, they are only responsible for the enlisted men in their direct group (like helicopter crews).

At any rate, this is still a far cry from the officers responsible for the enlisted men under their command. For example, if a Navy ship runs aground or has an accident, the ship's Captain is held responsible. Period. No excuses like "I was asleep at the time," or "I wasn't on the bridge," or "The XO was in charge." The Captain's career is effectively over and he is held accountable. The same should happen to the general officers in command of the prison and the same should happen to the civilians who authorized and created the atmosphere of abuse pervasive throughout the system.

- Rick
 

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
I agree with much of your post but not the part that "warrants aren't really officers."

Warrants are officers even tho' they don't hold a full commission, in the sense that you posted.

A chief warrant officer (W-4) buddy of mine that just retired was the XO of his flight group with command authority over the NCO's, enlisted, junior warrants & contractors: Army personnel totalling 40 or so, contractors totaling about 10, annual budget over $20 million /year, supporting approximately a half-dozen air craft. My friend's CO wouldn't sneeze without my buddy W-4's consent. Reason: a few hot-shot previous commissioned officer CO's had tried that & were quickly yanked from command by the commissioned higher-ups. The NCO's routinely took their orders directly from my W-4 buddy, who also handled personnel matters: training plans; maintenance oversight; contract management; and budgeting, amongst many other hats.

An officer is an officer is an officer.

However besides that one point, I agree with your post.
 
Top